FLOOD09102

• County: Logan
• Community: Sterling
• Basin: South Patte
• Title: Sterling Flood Control Interceptor Channel Project
• Date: 4/1/2002
• Prepared For: Sterling
• Prepared By: URS
• Floodplain - Doc Type: Project

I
I
I
I
I
, I
II I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I

I
I
I
I
I
I

SEmOITHREE AUected Environments and Environmental Consequences

3.11.1 Alternative 1 - No Action

No activities would occur under the No Action Alternative; therefore, this alternative does not
have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources.

3.11.2 Alternative 2. Sterling Flood Control Interceptor Channel (Proposed
Action)

A cultural resource survey was requested by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) in a
letter dated September 28, 1998. An archaeologist from Historic Preservation Consultants
(HPC) was hired to perform the survey on the project area. Their evaluation determined the
Sterling No. I Ditch was potentially eligible to the NRHP due to its age and association with the
early agricultural development of the area (Appendix E). In a letter dated December 12,2001,
the SHPO concurred with a no adverse effect determination provided that all ofthe structures on
the ditch; i.e., headgates and water control structures, within the area of potential effect were
recorded with Level II documentation (Appendix E). A Level II documentation of all ofthe
structures on the ditch was conducted by HPC and the results are presented in a report dated
March 2002 (Appendix E). The proposed project as designed would not have an adverse effect
on any of the structures ofthe Sterling No. I Ditch. Therefore, no additional consultation with
the SHPO regarding Sterling No.1 Ditch was required.

In the event that cultural resources are encountered during construction, activities would stop and
the SHPO and FEMA's Region VIII Environmental Officer would be contacted. Construction
would not resume until appropriate coordination and required mitigation had been completed.

3.11.3 Alternative 3 . Improve Routing of Pawnee Creek Flood Flows

Potential impacts of Alternative 3 are the same as discussed in Alternative 2.

In the event that cultural resources are encountered during construction, activities would stop and
the SHPO and FEMA's Region VIII Environmental Officer would be contacted. Construction
would not resume until appropriate coordination and required mitigation had been completed.

3.12 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES

The American Society for Testing and Materials (1994) Standard E 1527-94 defines a
recognized environmental condition as "the presence or likely presence of any hazardous
substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release,
a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substance or petroleum products
into structures on the property or into the ground, or surface water of the property." No
Hazardous materials are known to occur within the project area, and no hazardous materials were
identified in the project area during the site visit. Therefore, hazardous materials would have no
impact on any of the alternatives.

3-19